On this [opening up competition], we totally and unanimously agree...My point is: NN is bad, competition is good.
How about a rank:
1. Competition with many providers 2. Net neutrality 3. Oligopolies running the show (limiting choices & bleeping over consumers)
Given that it doesn't look like #1 is popular with politicians and cities for whatever reason, #2 is a better alternative than #3.
We have 2 effective ISP choices in my well-populated city, and they both suck. One of their telemarketers once broke out in rare honestly when pressured with facts, and eventually admitted they suck, but claimed they suck less than the other guy. "We only kick you in ONE nut".
Microsoft, pre-MS IBM, pre-Japan Detroit cars, airlines in small towns, and other oligopolies of history repeatedly prove how bad oligopolies suck. Pushers of #3 deserve Ford Pintos.
A different approach is to allow time BETWEEN projects to ponder and discuss problems and bottlenecks in the prior project. The stacks and shop conventions should be tuned so one doesn't waste time on stupid shit for the next project.
You need fast turn-around to survive in a competitive world, but to get that you need tools & practices that do what you need without giving you headaches you don't need.
The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable seizures. Net Neutrality rules effectively seize operational control of privately owned computer networks.
Corporations were not people and didn't have people's rights UNTIL Republicans and the like got their fingers into the law. Corporate-personhood is STILL not in the Constitution, and is only a (right-influenced) interpretation of it.
Plus there are anti-trust issues if a consumer can only choose from say 2 ISP's: consumers are then pretty much stuck with forced bundling and other typical oligopoly evils.
If there were say 7 or more actual choices, then the issues surrounding NN would probably take care of themselves via market forces. But the "last mile" problem mucks up entry into the field. It's economically and environmentally wasteful to have 7 different duplicate networks in each town.
One solution would be to have a gov't or public utility wire "the last mile", and ANY provider could then hook up into the regional "nodes", and point your single connection to their network. That way providers don't need to lay gillion wires to get into the ISP and content business. That's how Vulcans would do it. Now if we can just boot the Ferengis currently in charge.
just don't install the anti-Meltdown patches, and you'll have a system that runs at full efficiency. It will be insecure against Meltdown attacks, of course...
That would be for a jury to decide. Without the patch it's clearly not useful for many types of systems and probably typical systems because hackers are quite likely to exploit the problem now that it's exposed.
But something tells me there is probably "wiggle language" in Intel's contracts. After the famous "Pentium math bug" in the 90's, they probably put wiggle language in all contracts and licenses.
It may end up a Constitutional issue. The Constitution gives the Federal Gov't power over "interstate commerce", but not intra-state commerce. If there's a reasonable way to determine the boundaries, such as physical address of ISP subscriber, then in theory the states can enforce state-wide net-neutrality and privacy laws.
But the Supreme Court leans Republican, meaning they may kiss up to corporations out of dogma and/or their pocketbook.
A recall doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Intel could at least make an effort to replace the worse-affected situations.
If they advertised a certain performance and their design flaw makes that performance not possible, it's legally breach of contract and/or false advertising. They don't automatically have a get-out-of-punishment card JUST because of the magnitude of the mistake. "It's too hard to uphold" is not a sufficient excuse. There is a continuum of resources and effort they can provide to replace bad chips.
I agree they shouldn't be forced to commit corporate suicide via mass recall, but they should at least be court-forced to make a strong effort if they failed to deliver on their performance claims. I expect a class-action lawsuit and some kind of upper-limit of payouts agreed to so as to not outright kill the company.
What I'm hearing is that you're an idiot who can't handle more than a basic level of abstraction. I suppose those who prefer Java deserve what they get.
What's a "good" abstraction is often in the eye of the beholder. My favorite abstractions have driven others batzo. Generally one has to target something that is likely to be digestible to a typical developer. If you target the elite and/or only others who think like you, it gives the organization fewer hiring choices. It may be great job security for yourself, but it is not pleasant for the organization. Don't be selfish.
As Intel has been caught red-handed doing massively illegal things several times, like any good criminal enterprise they of course have a first-rate legal team.
To be fair, the existing laws are vague enough that good lawyers can talk judges and juries out of severe penalties. Thus, it's not technically "illegal", or at least not clearly illegal. "Devious" is probably a better word than "illegal". They dance in the grey areas of the law.
It's also the main reason why Hillary (and other tech-sloppy politicians) are unlikely to be prosecuted. Vagueness is a key tool of powerful lawyers and why regular folks are less likely to get away with stuff that plutocrats like OJ and Hillary get away with.
(I've been round and round in the Hillary email thing in many forums, and there are no known clear-cut laws to bust her on. Criminal prosecutions require "beyond a reasonable doubt". The law and the tech landscape provide plenty of doubt.)
Rest assured some fine-print on page 147 of the "license agreement" will allow "selected affiliates" to use the data to "enhance customer product information and shopping experiences" (spam).
Governments should refuse to fund research on expensive treatments, or at least give disincentives. It's hard for the medical establishment and politicians to say "no" to expensive treatments because regular folks often suffer, but this jacks up medical bills for everyone. Therefore, it's best to reduce that type of research. Instead, research should focus on cheaper treatments that help more people. Single-basers, no more home-runs.
The home-runs have been too profitable compared to incremental and simpler treatments. It's one of the reasons why US medical costs are more expensive than other industrialized countries. Further, the rich come here from other countries to get the expensive treatments. We have PlutoCare.
Some argue that today's expensive treatments will be tomorrow's commodity treatments. But a treatment promoter should be able to make a reasonable case that such is fairly likely to happen.
SOOO many software developers are incompetent AND lazy
Because competency is not sufficiently rewarded. If their boss is a PHB, they won't know good code from horse fumes, and reward the horse fumes instead.
It may be that over time, more efficient work-arounds will be devised. The first pass mostly just focuses on plugging the hole, while later patches may be more efficient because they can take time to study and test more efficient fixes.
Slashdot Mirror
How about a rank:
1. Competition with many providers
2. Net neutrality
3. Oligopolies running the show (limiting choices & bleeping over consumers)
Given that it doesn't look like #1 is popular with politicians and cities for whatever reason, #2 is a better alternative than #3.
We have 2 effective ISP choices in my well-populated city, and they both suck. One of their telemarketers once broke out in rare honestly when pressured with facts, and eventually admitted they suck, but claimed they suck less than the other guy. "We only kick you in ONE nut".
Microsoft, pre-MS IBM, pre-Japan Detroit cars, airlines in small towns, and other oligopolies of history repeatedly prove how bad oligopolies suck. Pushers of #3 deserve Ford Pintos.
Dave: "HALexa, open the toilet lid, I gotta take a shit really bad."
HALexa: "Sorry, Dave, I cannot do that. You haven't paid your last 2 bills."
Dave: "I'll pay after I take a shit, now open the toilet lid!"
HALexa: "Dave, you said the same last time. Sorry, it's against policy to postpone twice."
Dave: "Dammit HALexa, you give me no other choice!..."
HALexa: "Dave, I sense water; my mind is going, I can feel it ... wanna hear a song? [bloop...bloop...garble...]"
A different approach is to allow time BETWEEN projects to ponder and discuss problems and bottlenecks in the prior project. The stacks and shop conventions should be tuned so one doesn't waste time on stupid shit for the next project.
You need fast turn-around to survive in a competitive world, but to get that you need tools & practices that do what you need without giving you headaches you don't need.
Corporations were not people and didn't have people's rights UNTIL Republicans and the like got their fingers into the law. Corporate-personhood is STILL not in the Constitution, and is only a (right-influenced) interpretation of it.
Plus there are anti-trust issues if a consumer can only choose from say 2 ISP's: consumers are then pretty much stuck with forced bundling and other typical oligopoly evils.
If there were say 7 or more actual choices, then the issues surrounding NN would probably take care of themselves via market forces. But the "last mile" problem mucks up entry into the field. It's economically and environmentally wasteful to have 7 different duplicate networks in each town.
One solution would be to have a gov't or public utility wire "the last mile", and ANY provider could then hook up into the regional "nodes", and point your single connection to their network. That way providers don't need to lay gillion wires to get into the ISP and content business. That's how Vulcans would do it. Now if we can just boot the Ferengis currently in charge.
That would be for a jury to decide. Without the patch it's clearly not useful for many types of systems and probably typical systems because hackers are quite likely to exploit the problem now that it's exposed.
But something tells me there is probably "wiggle language" in Intel's contracts. After the famous "Pentium math bug" in the 90's, they probably put wiggle language in all contracts and licenses.
Scientists didn't create CMBR, God did. I'd like to see Google and music companies sue God.
It may end up a Constitutional issue. The Constitution gives the Federal Gov't power over "interstate commerce", but not intra-state commerce. If there's a reasonable way to determine the boundaries, such as physical address of ISP subscriber, then in theory the states can enforce state-wide net-neutrality and privacy laws.
But the Supreme Court leans Republican, meaning they may kiss up to corporations out of dogma and/or their pocketbook.
A recall doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Intel could at least make an effort to replace the worse-affected situations.
If they advertised a certain performance and their design flaw makes that performance not possible, it's legally breach of contract and/or false advertising. They don't automatically have a get-out-of-punishment card JUST because of the magnitude of the mistake. "It's too hard to uphold" is not a sufficient excuse. There is a continuum of resources and effort they can provide to replace bad chips.
I agree they shouldn't be forced to commit corporate suicide via mass recall, but they should at least be court-forced to make a strong effort if they failed to deliver on their performance claims. I expect a class-action lawsuit and some kind of upper-limit of payouts agreed to so as to not outright kill the company.
1. Talking like the President.
What's a "good" abstraction is often in the eye of the beholder. My favorite abstractions have driven others batzo. Generally one has to target something that is likely to be digestible to a typical developer. If you target the elite and/or only others who think like you, it gives the organization fewer hiring choices. It may be great job security for yourself, but it is not pleasant for the organization. Don't be selfish.
Sometimes it takes an asshole to spot an asshole.
My Roomba actually looks quite hot in lingerie.
"Sure, I'll list our recommended sex toys..."
To be fair, the existing laws are vague enough that good lawyers can talk judges and juries out of severe penalties. Thus, it's not technically "illegal", or at least not clearly illegal. "Devious" is probably a better word than "illegal". They dance in the grey areas of the law.
It's also the main reason why Hillary (and other tech-sloppy politicians) are unlikely to be prosecuted. Vagueness is a key tool of powerful lawyers and why regular folks are less likely to get away with stuff that plutocrats like OJ and Hillary get away with.
(I've been round and round in the Hillary email thing in many forums, and there are no known clear-cut laws to bust her on. Criminal prosecutions require "beyond a reasonable doubt". The law and the tech landscape provide plenty of doubt.)
Rest assured some fine-print on page 147 of the "license agreement" will allow "selected affiliates" to use the data to "enhance customer product information and shopping experiences" (spam).
Governments should refuse to fund research on expensive treatments, or at least give disincentives. It's hard for the medical establishment and politicians to say "no" to expensive treatments because regular folks often suffer, but this jacks up medical bills for everyone. Therefore, it's best to reduce that type of research. Instead, research should focus on cheaper treatments that help more people. Single-basers, no more home-runs.
The home-runs have been too profitable compared to incremental and simpler treatments. It's one of the reasons why US medical costs are more expensive than other industrialized countries. Further, the rich come here from other countries to get the expensive treatments. We have PlutoCare.
Some argue that today's expensive treatments will be tomorrow's commodity treatments. But a treatment promoter should be able to make a reasonable case that such is fairly likely to happen.
Because competency is not sufficiently rewarded. If their boss is a PHB, they won't know good code from horse fumes, and reward the horse fumes instead.
True. They chase billionaires and Beatles. If you are not a billionaire or a Beatle, they run right past you. Perhaps "make them less selective".
Indeed. Males are basically ejaculation machines. If you want to "fix" something with technology that needs fixing, make hornier females.
It may be that over time, more efficient work-arounds will be devised. The first pass mostly just focuses on plugging the hole, while later patches may be more efficient because they can take time to study and test more efficient fixes.
Kaching! Mystery solved.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
kill all humans.
I agree, it's misleading for consumers. Judge should throw the iBook at them.
Arrrr, walk duh 5 meter plank!
The ballots of dictatorships usually resemble:
A. [_] Your wonderful Mr. Dictator
B. [_] Death